PDA

View Full Version : Warriors just played their 93rd game, 81-12



joedaheights
05-16-2016, 11:51 PM
96 Bulls at that point? 82-11 with only two more losses to come in the finals.

Wade n Fade
05-17-2016, 12:18 AM
That stretch will mean nothing if the Dubs don't repeat. It's really repeat or bust.

numba1CHANGsta
05-17-2016, 12:21 AM
cool?

KnicksorBust
05-17-2016, 11:58 AM
Keeping track of the record now is just silly. No one is going to know that number. All they care about is if they got 4 wins in the Finals.

nastynice
05-17-2016, 11:52 PM
That stretch will mean nothing if the Dubs don't repeat. It's really repeat or bust.


Keeping track of the record now is just silly. No one is going to know that number. All they care about is if they got 4 wins in the Finals.

Exactly. It's crazy how such a huge record is really just so meaningless at this point. All that matters is the WCF at this point, nothing else. Win or go home. No one cares about the wins record at this point.

jason
05-18-2016, 12:42 AM
Exactly. It's crazy how such a huge record is really just so meaningless at this point. All that matters is the WCF at this point, nothing else. Win or go home. No one cares about the wins record at this point.
You're confused nastynice.. This is a thread from a Bulls fan to show that the Warriors are not as good the Bulls

joedaheights
05-18-2016, 01:39 AM
You're confused nastynice.. This is a thread from a Bulls fan to show that the Warriors are not as good the Bulls

Objectively they just are. But, I think any good NBA fan who happens to be a Bulls fan could post something like this because they know that 73 wins doesn't mean what it did in 92, just like it wouldn't have meant the same to win 73 in 92 as 96.

Notice, also, that you have these nerds saying, "well, if you look at it, since a three is worth more points than a two, shooting a lower percentage doesn't matter if your true shooting percentage is higher."

Then you'd have people point out… "well, in the playoffs, particularly late, shots from deep are contested better than ever, but the physical traits that allow a player who is a dominant athlete to get any two point shot he wants… those do NOT go away. And that is how the Bulls beat teams late in playoff games (and not just them, a lot of great teams).. you had the Bulls contesting 3 pointers and making them flat out not look as easy as they did in the regular season or first round, and then on the other end, the two point looks they can get are just so good."

And so it was last night. Durant getting the deuce with ease. And you can't say, "well, I'll miss this three with 12 seconds left, because, you see, I'll just hit a three after the game is over, and shooting 33% on three 3s will be better than the other guy going 1 for 2 on twos."

And I'm sure you'll reply that Mr. Right now is the best thing that ever happened, but remember, I've heard it all.. I've heard, in 2002-04 that Michael Jordan wouldn't do what he did in the 90s against Bruce Bowen and Doug Christie. That was actually a thing.

By the way, while you're busy blowing the current league, are you noticing that one of the ECF teams wouldn't even be a good SEMIFINAL opponent in MOST eras? The Raptors? Ever think to yourself… "you know, if the Knicks had to play Demar Derozan and Lowry, they might not have made it to the 93 ECF, because, you know, Demar Derozan would just make Patrick Ewing look like a regular guy"…?

nastynice
05-18-2016, 01:53 AM
What?





...the hell?

nastynice
05-18-2016, 01:54 AM
You're confused nastynice.. This is a thread from a Bulls fan to show that the Warriors are not as good the Bulls

I'm a just go with this. As the answer to my previous post.

Seems to make sense, lol

Chronz
05-18-2016, 02:21 AM
What?





...the hell?
Wats the internets answer to a mild chuckle. Not lol but hehehehe?

nastynice
05-18-2016, 02:30 AM
Wats the internets answer to a mild chuckle. Not lol but hehehehe?

yea, I'd say a hehe would suffice

No, but I was legit confused tho, that wasn't a joke. **** got crazy, fast!

KnicksorBust
05-18-2016, 11:50 AM
yea, I'd say a hehe would suffice

No, but I was legit confused tho, that wasn't a joke. **** got crazy, fast!

What about heh-heh? I read hehe as that old snuggles commercial with the bear giggling "hee-hee!"

jason
05-18-2016, 11:59 PM
What?





...the hell?
Living in the past.. He seems to care way too much

Monta is beast
05-19-2016, 05:07 AM
Objectively they just are. But, I think any good NBA fan who happens to be a Bulls fan could post something like this because they know that 73 wins doesn't mean what it did in 92, just like it wouldn't have meant the same to win 73 in 92 as 96.

Notice, also, that you have these nerds saying, "well, if you look at it, since a three is worth more points than a two, shooting a lower percentage doesn't matter if your true shooting percentage is higher."

Then you'd have people point out… "well, in the playoffs, particularly late, shots from deep are contested better than ever, but the physical traits that allow a player who is a dominant athlete to get any two point shot he wants… those do NOT go away. And that is how the Bulls beat teams late in playoff games (and not just them, a lot of great teams).. you had the Bulls contesting 3 pointers and making them flat out not look as easy as they did in the regular season or first round, and then on the other end, the two point looks they can get are just so good."

And so it was last night. Durant getting the deuce with ease. And you can't say, "well, I'll miss this three with 12 seconds left, because, you see, I'll just hit a three after the game is over, and shooting 33% on three 3s will be better than the other guy going 1 for 2 on twos."

And I'm sure you'll reply that Mr. Right now is the best thing that ever happened, but remember, I've heard it all.. I've heard, in 2002-04 that Michael Jordan wouldn't do what he did in the 90s against Bruce Bowen and Doug Christie. That was actually a thing.

By the way, while you're busy blowing the current league, are you noticing that one of the ECF teams wouldn't even be a good SEMIFINAL opponent in MOST eras? The Raptors? Ever think to yourself… "you know, if the Knicks had to play Demar Derozan and Lowry, they might not have made it to the 93 ECF, because, you know, Demar Derozan would just make Patrick Ewing look like a regular guy"…?

All this and your point is the nba was more difficult back in the 90's? When in fact the talent in the league now is more abundant and better then ever.

Same amount of roster spots in the nba, population on earth has gone way up if im not mistaken. International scouting is way more prevalent now. "Bigger faster stronger" athletes. But you know hand checking cancels all that talent disparity out.

joedaheights
05-20-2016, 02:39 PM
All this and your point is the nba was more difficult back in the 90's? When in fact the talent in the league now is more abundant and better then ever.

Same amount of roster spots in the nba, population on earth has gone way up if im not mistaken. International scouting is way more prevalent now. "Bigger faster stronger" athletes. But you know hand checking cancels all that talent disparity out.

Okay, but that's the thing.. I used to get irritated that people like you wanted to have this discussion.. now I realize it's a discussion that increases the popularity of the game. The NBA wants this discussion to go on, but you must not also take that "how dare you" approach I used to take either.

You have logical fallacies in what you just wrote.

1. Is the talent in the league now really more abundant than ever?

The Raptors are in the conference Finals. In 1991, tell me which of the following teams they'd beat.. OR which of the following four teams is less talented than them:

The Chicago Bulls
C Cartwright
F Grant
F Pippen
G Jordan
G Paxson

The Detroit Pistons
C Edwards
F Laimbeer
F Rodman
G Dumars
G Thomas
Bench
F Aguirre
F Salley
G Johnson

The Los Angeles Lakers
C Divac
F Perkins
F Worthy
G Scott
G Johnson

The Portland Trailblazers
C Duckworth
F Williams
F Kersey
G Drexler
G Porter

Tell me who the Toronto Raptors are going to beat. You sound like fans of the 02 Lakers who were telling me how the league has never been better, but yet the 2002 Nets are in the Finals. The league has 3 strong teams, one team that would be really strong if it wasn't just so bad and terrible and f-ing awful when Tim Duncan starts to look 40 in the playoffs, and a bunch of garbage.

2. Your next thing is "population of the world growing and therefore if you add international players, here you go"

International players, whether you like it or not, have had a negligible effect on the league. Dirk Nowitzki is the lone guy who has ever sniffed being a true perennial alpha dog of championship teams and he only won one ring. Olajuwon was not part of any international movement and developed greatly playing college ball in the US. He was a unicorn, which I'll get to later.

Do players like Steph Curry, Lebron James or Kevin Durant ever feel truly confronted or like they might be limited by any international player? Would Magic Johnson, Bill Russell or Michael Jordan find any international player to be difficult of a matchup as the younger swingman version of Dennis Rodman, Wilt Chamberlain or Joe Dumars with Rodman and Isiah helping?

No. And while international talent has increased, the AAU pimp game, college coaches taking short cuts and early entry have made the top end superstar talent worse amongst NBA players from the US. That's why you aren't seeing anything close to the 84 or 03 draft repeated. The 84 draft had Jordan, Barkley, Stockton, etc. In 85 you had Ewing, Malone, etc. Now? Ben Simmons? Yeah, okay.

And the problem is, because these players can tell their high school coach to screw off in favor of their AAU coach, and then go to college for one year, the guys who have the top end talent can't also do all the things that a Jordan or Magic could do fundamentally, because the NBA is a terrible environment for teaching fundamentals and modern coaches have said that.

Case in point.. Ben Gordon. Vinnie Johnson with an extra 50 lbs. of muscle and more explosiveness. But, was he a better PLAYER? Not really.

Jimmy Butler… all the athleticism in the world and the left hand dribble of my 14 year old.. non existent.

I don't think that the NBA evolution of athleticism, without fundamentals remaining as high, overrides the principle of the unicorn.

Look how for example, unathletic the league was in the 1960s relative to today. But, Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell were just mutants. Does their physical tools correlate with where the average athlete was then physically? Or are they so far outside of the average athlete that it wouldn't matter if they were dropped here, there or any time in history?

Yes, Brad Lohaus would have a hard time today, but is there any player today with the combination of size and explosiveness of Shaquille O'neal? So, while I think athleticism in a track and field sense increases as PEDs become safer and easier to use and conceal and as massive amounts of hormones enter our food supply (because scientists have a consensus that humans don't evolve in 50 years and that whey protein and life fitness machines are not enough to cause this evolution on their own), I think it's dangerous to say, "oh well this guy wouldn't do this here."

I think today's rules hurt Charles Oakley and Tyrone Hill. But, conversely, I think they'd make Derrick McKey and Horace Grant much better players.. and have a positive affect on Jordan or Pippen.

In any era, mutants override trends in athleticism. Case in point, Bo Jackson, who admitted to never working out, doing plyometrics or any of that… as a high school senior he was a better pure athlete than almost anyone you've seen since.

As far as hand checking and physical play… it would limit a Steph Curry.. who is never forced to "be an athlete" because he doesn't have to deal with this stuff. But, would it be stupid to act as if he wouldn't still be better than Reggie Miller? YES! It would be. He's a great player. In 1991, is he better than Jordan? No. And remember, our perception of a lot of guys is shaped by the fact that they never won a ring because of MJ. If you put Steph Curry on the Pacers and take Reggie Miller off, they don't win in 1991. Do they win in 1998? Maybe. I'll give you that. MJ was cooked by 1997 in my book. THAT league was not great either.

Conversely, what would MJ be if he was completely freed of guys being able to clothesline him and hang all over him. Think about this, he STILL was as great as he was with all that; imagine without.

Want to see a clip of Isiah grabbing him with both arms around the back of his neck while Rodman sneaks in a rabbit punch to his face.. REGULAR foul? Cause I can show you.

I don't believe in absolutes…. if you say GSW would blow the 91 Bulls out and some guy from Chicago thinks that the 1997 Bulls would destroy GSW 4-0, the truth is probably WAY toward the middle.

Make sense?